Pastor John MacArthur recently made some comments about the ongoing civil unrest in the Middle East. “I just think the upshot of all of this is more instability, more chaos,” the longtime Southern California pastor told The Christian Post in an interview. “I don’t think the future looks good.” He may be right, but he doesn’t really know. He uses Iran as an example of what happened when the government of the Shah was replaced with that of the Ayatollahs. “You’d like to think that nothing but freedom would come out of this. That’s not what happened in Iran.” There remains an undercurrent of dissatisfaction in Iran.
Who would have thought that the Berlin Wall would come down, or the Soviet Union would collapse, or atheistic Romania and other Eastern Bloc countries would break free from the Soviet orbit? The question is, What will fill the vacuum? If Christians aren’t ready to lead in this area, then we’re going to have years of unrest. Until Christians engage the culture in a comprehensive way with the “whole purpose God” (Acts 20:27) all we’re going to see in the next few decades is hand wringing. We need a new generation of the “sons of Isaachar,” “men who understood the times with knowledge of what Israel should do” (1 Chron. 12:32).
I don’t have much of an argument with MacArthur’s comments about the potential for further disruption, instability, and chaos. I’ve been just as distrustful and skeptical of democratic uprisings as he has, and I’ve said as much in my article “The Scourge of Unbridled Democracy.” The French and Russian Revolutions are examples of popular uprisings going bad. We don’t know what the outcome is going to be after expressions of popular unrest, although I suspect, given MacArthur’s prophetic views, that he sees these displays of dissent as setting the stage for a series of end-time events culminating in the “rapture” of the church, the rise of antichrist, and an attack on Israel. There can’t be any real hope of national stability in the Middle East because the prophetic tea leaves tell us so.
Here is where I have a disagreement with MacArthur. The article reports the following about his views: “But from a biblical perspective, MacArthur maintained that the protesters are in violation of the biblical command to ‘submit to the powers that be because they’re ordained of God.’” I don’t see how protesting the actions of a civil government is a violation of the biblical command to submit to civil authority. When a civil ruler operates outside his jurisdictional limitations, it is not wrong for the people to call him to account. A civil ruler only operates legitimately in those things over which he has jurisdictional authority. He can’t claim that because he’s a king that whatever he does is the result of his office. An elected official that lies, cheats, steals, and murders is not doing God’s will in his civil capacity. He can and should be called to account. Samuel Rutherford’s comments in Lex, Rex, or, The Law and the Prince are helpful on this point:
It is true, so long as kings remain kings, subjection is due to them because [they are] kings; but that is not the question. The question is, if subjection be due to them, when they use their power unlawfully and tyrannically. The question is, if subjection be due them when they use their power unlawfully and tyrannically. Whatever David did, though he was a king, he did it not as a king; he deflowered not Bathsheba as king, and Bathsheba might with bodily resistance and violence lawfully have resisted king David, though kingly power remained in him, while he should thus attempt to commit adultery; else David might have said to Bathsheba, “Because I am the Lord’s anointed, it is rebellion in thee, a subject, to oppose any bodily violence to my act of forcing of thee; it is unlawful to thee to cry for help, for if any shall offer violently to rescue thee from me, he resisteth the ordinance of God.[1]
What if Uriah, Bathsheba’s husband had learned of his wife’s infidelity and the sinful and criminal action of King David? Was he obligated to remain silent and be subject to the king’s actions based on MacArthur’s reading of Romans 13:1–2?:
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
Was it wrong for Naboth not to accept the generous offer of King Ahab either to buy or trade for his vineyard? It seems to me that Jezebel’s counsel was very close to what John MacArthur is advocating, “Then his wife Jezebel said to him, ‘Now, exercise your royal power over Israel. . . .’” (1 Kings 21:7). She was saying, “Hey, man, you’re the king. God gave you this authority. Take the land if you want it. You can do this because (1) every person “must be in subjection to the governing authorities” and (2) “whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.” Naboth resisted, so I guess, he received a just punishment. I don’t think so.
It’s obvious that Ahab and even Jezebel feared the people because they had Naboth charged, convicted, and punished based on false testimony on a trumped-up charge of sedition and blasphemy (Lev. 24:15–16). They did this privately using their own operatives. The people only knew that Naboth was guilty of violating one of God’s commandments that deserved the death penalty. Would the people have been wrong to protest the action of Ahab and Jezebel if they had gotten wind of their plot? Protesting the actions of a civil leader is not a violation of Romans 13. The vast majority of the demonstrations in Egypt were non-violent. It was the vast numbers of disenchanted Egyptians who drove Mubarak out of office.
Endnotes:- Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex, or, The Law and the Prince (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, [1644] 1980), 149. Often Lex, Rex is translated as “The Law is King.” The correct translation is The Law and the Prince. [↩]
Gary is a graduate of Western Michigan University (1973) and earned his M.Div. at Reformed Theological Seminary in 1979. Author of countless essays, news articles, and more than 27 book titles, he also hosts The Gary DeMar Show, and History Unwrapped—both broadcasted and podcasted. Gary has lived in the Atlanta area since 1979 with his wife, Carol. They have two married sons and are enjoying being grandparents to their grandsons, Calvin and Paul. Gary and Carol are members of Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA).
King David suffered personally for his very personal transgressions against Bathsheba, Uriah, and God’s commandment forbidding adultery. Contrast this with David’s sin recorded in 2nd Samuel 24:1-25 and again in 1st Chronicles 21:1-28, where he defied God’s census prohibition. David’s “captain of the host,” Joab, tried to dissuade him, but David was determined to know how many Israelites comprised his kingdom. God knew David’s motive was rebellious pride. Although David sinned as the King of Israel, God held both David and the people of Israel responsible. Why were the people responsible too? It’s because they had the power to stop the King’s census but failed to do so. In other words, theirs was a sin of omission (failing to act), rather than commission. How do we know this? God forced David to pick one of three judgments, but whichever one he picked would be a judgment against the whole nation of Israel.
From 2nd Samuel 24 we read of God’s judgment on Israel.
13 So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days’ pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me.
14 And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of the LORD; for his mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand of man.
15 So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning even to the time appointed: and there died of the people from Dan even to Beersheba seventy thousand men.
70,000 Israelites died because king David sinned AND the Israelite people did not stop him.
The principle still applies today. When we fail to stop the sinful actions of evil leaders, we commit a sin of omission. We are not acting against God when we resist evil, because the authority of any leader is limited to only the authority God has delegated to him. When a leader usurps authority outside God’s delegated authority, he becomes a tyrant who must be reigned in or removed from his leadership position.
We live in a nation OF laws. Our President, Senators, Congressmen, etc. are all BOUND by that law (as are we). If one of our own law MAKERS breaks that law (or those laws) I see it as our DUTY as citizens, what EVER our religion to do what is necessary to CORRECT that law breaker in what manner is most acceptable in our society LAWFULLY.
In the USA we are by law permitted to protest by several means. And so for Christian to protest we are by that very practice OBEYING God’s law (or doing that which God permits us do) BY participating and PRACTICING the law of the land.
Macarthur left out one important thing GOD did not put us on this earth to be a slave to man,you are told to love one another if at all possible. I cannot see you loving anyone that uses a whip. We are a free people that is to do one thing and one thing only,LOVE YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL. Does that sound like I’m to lay down and take a bunch of crap from anyone??? I along with any other Christian DEFEND THE FAITH. that my friend don’t sound like we are to just lay down and say hit me again and again. You hit back,do not be a second class citizen. At least stand for the LORD show some kind of guts. You forget with GOD all things are possible
Why do you all assume God put certain people in a ruling postion? Satan is the one roaming about the earth seeking whom he can devour! Why do you think things are going the way they are in DC? God doesn’t sanction homosexuality-to Him it’s an abomination, nor does he sanction murder-aborting unborn babies-that to God are a blessing, nor does he condon lying, stealing cheating, or any of the sinful behavior that is taking place in this country. As far as I am concerned all the arguments I have read on here are right on with the verse “They will strain at a gnat and swollow a camel”. The whole point of all this is we are to OBEY GODS LAWS and if MANS LAWS go against Gods laws we are to obey Gods laws. Do not stray from what God is telling us! That has gone on far too long and now the country we love and live in is in a great turmoil. Before George Washington crossed the Delaware he went off by himself to pray. God showed him the America would be brought to her knees until she turned her face back toward God… Think about it people… are we being brought to our knees or what? As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord!
I always find it interesting that so many professing Christians in the US absolutely love it when the US military/CIA polices the world and attempts to overthrow rulers in other countries all the while quoting Romans 13 to those of us who point out the evils of the US government! Aren’t those other sovereign countries’ rulers ordained by God or is it just the rulers in the US?
God would, at times, command the armies of ancient Israel to overthrow evil kingdoms who killed their own people- the sacrifice of children to Molech is listed as one of the reasons that the Canaanites lost their land. I can’t speak for America’s other wars (they’re outside my field of knowledge) but the wars WWII and in Iraq were both to overthrow brutal regimes which were not only (at least to be in the future) a threat to the United States, but also practiced terrible cruelties to their own people.
I think that those who are strong have a moral- if not legal- obligation to protect the weak; and if their oppressors also have their sights set on harming the US, then don’t we have a two-fold reason for interfering?
When human law contradicts divine law – Acts 5:29.
Old Testament Christians?
“So he made a whip out of cords and drove all from the Temple.” Ouch!
When pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who had knowledge of millions of Jews murdered and the German Church being taken over by the Reich, assisted in a plot to have Hitler, the Fuhrer, assassinated, was he in violaton of Romans 13 or 1st Peter? Bonhoeffor had to consider all of scripture including laying down his life for a brother to conclude that inaction versus Hitler was the greater sin. Assassination is a greater rebellion than protest or revolt. Did he act unbiblically? I would conclude not. I would say it was an act of love that was an attempt to save millions of people.
Let me just be brief: One person in history who repeatedly quoted Romans: 13, was Adolf Hitler. I rest my case.
Can you give me the source for Hitler’s use of Rom. 13?
I believe we are GOD’s army and have a duty to fight evil. We are at war with Satan and need to do whatever it takes to stand up and fight for GOD and erase evil. If we know of someone doing evil and committing crimes it is our duty to report it and have that criminal charged not just sit by and keep quiet when we can have evil people pay for their crimes.
This article is of another spirit. I keep checking back, hoping to feel differently. But you guys are building sandcastles over here. Look up like Abraham did, if you are his seed and have his faith. If you want an old testament christian nation, you are going to have to kill them, not put them under the law. You are making physical Israels error, again. This article is of another spirit. He rules all nations, has given us a passport to go where called, and if we suffer for the gospel (not revolt or meddling in the affairs of the gentiles, seeking what the nations seek) we get to glorify Him in our sufferings, or meet Him. Praise Him! He came and did, and left us a perfect example to follow.
Repent, and turn back. The time has passed for doing what the gentiles do…
Then you should feel regret to live in the United States that gives you the freedom to make such an absurd statement. Why don’t you move to a nation where you can suffer for your faith. When the apostle Paul was about to be beaten by a Roman soldier, he appealed to his Roman citizenship. Later in Acts, he appealed to Caesar, a gentile if there ever was one!
What a stupid, irrelevant response. You missed his point completely because you don’t have eyes to see what he was saying or you deliberately tried your Red Herring. So Gary, just how many people have you led to the Lord this year? Last year? Your entire Christian life? How many lost people have you witnessed to this year? Last year?
It is ultimately selfish to say that we as Americans and Christians should stay out of other nations business. So, should we then continue to turn the blind eye to the atrocities of evil dictators because we are doing the work of evangelism?
Evangelism is the delivering of the WHOLE word of God; not just the stuff that you are happy with. If you personally were to deliver the gospel to Hitler, and he choose to ignore his chance for redemption and said, sorry it’s time for me to go murder millions to feed my corrupted flesh; are you then saying to those lost souls that die at his hand, too bad, I chose not to kill this murderer when I had the chance? If killing Hitler was the only way to stop him from genocide, I would gladly save millions, had I the chance.
I believe Peter went much deeper than public conduct. He is cutting to the motive and intent of the heart. He is absolutely not saying to just blindly obey evil, and suffer as Christ suffered in *deed only. He is speaking to what motivates us. He is getting at the position of the believer. Do we live for ourselves? Then all his words regarding authority and obedience to it will definitely reveal the rebellion in our hearts if we are reacting to evil with evil. A Kingdom divided against itself will not stand. Nevertheless, if we are truly obedient followers of Christ, we will give our lives to set the captives free, we will overcome evil with good. Goodness is not quiet acquiescence to evil tyranny. Did Christ sin when He pulled the livestock from the pit, or healed on the Sabbath? I think if we don’t start getting to the heart of what we are doing here on earth. (we are supposed to rule and reign with Him now, on earth as it is in Heaven, when our obedience is full we are standing ready etc.). Protesting and debating is all a very healthy way to articulate these things. Iron sharpens iron. We learn as we are chafed. Nevertheless, as Christians we are the only people with the Kingdom edict. We are overcomers. We first overcome the evil within through the blood of Christ and His Word (His goodness leads us to repentance) and then we overcome the evil without. His Kingdom will overtake all other kingdoms. If you have found a way not to resist evil and still extend the Kingdom of God….I’m all ears…(sarcasm alert…my apologies)
The Gospel itself was disobedient to Nero…as it claimed another to be King. Peter was not asking us to renounce Christ as King. We were to remain subject to Christ, which put us clearly in “revolt” (although peaceful) to Nero…..
Based on what you’re expressing, I believe you and I are mostly in accord. The point of potential difference appears to be the level and extent of revolt/protest/rebellion, and what form that might take. My position is based on my reading of Romans 13 and even more so, my study of 1 Peter. I take some comfort from the fact that John Calvin himself supported the same or similar view, although of course I am by no means claiming the man was infallible.
http://www.biblestudyguide.org/comment/calvin/comm_vol45/htm/iv.iii.v.htm
In any event, I respect, enjoy and appreciate quite a bit of what I read here, even if I may disagree with the specific position expressed by this article. All my best.
Wicked men can rule. God is Sovereign. We obey God. If God places a wicked ruler over the people, the people are to continue to obey God. This includes disobedience to the governing authority when it comes to any requirement or law that would require the disobedience of God. If our obedience becomes disobedience due to a tyrannical system established by a tyrannical governmaent, so be it. Set me on a stake and light your party with my burning corpse.
Kelly, I appreciate your words and your motive. I do have to ask you what you mean by “God placing a wicked ruler over man. We are not God’s puppets and he does not move his children around like chess peices on a board.
Man still has free will and we cannot blame God for putting a wicked ruler in place over the oppressed. Man has the ultimate responsibility for his choices, not our Father in heaven. We can choose to be unified for good or evil. God may allows us to suffer our sins of omission or comission in order for us to see how corrupt or flesh can be and to repent and run to Him.
The OT examples are interesting, but I don’t see how they could contradict 1 Peter 2:13-17, written to a group of Christians under horrible and ungodly oppression from Nero, far worse than the oppression seen in most of the more recent revolutions: “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.” Would be curious to know how you reconcile the above passage with your thesis? Thanks.
Dennis, I believe you’ve posted your own answer: “‘Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.’” Those “governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right” are themselves in submission to the Bible – Rom 13:3,4. The passage you posted does not talk about submitting to passively to are perverters of law. 1 Peter 2 does say to “honor the Emperor” but one can both honor and protest – as Naboth did.
Thanks for your post, but at the time of Romans and 1 Peter, the emperor and his governors were certainly NOT acting in accordance with God’s justice. As Joshua P indicates below, Nero in particular was punishing good and not evil. And yet from the clear thrust of 1 Peter, the apostle nevertheless seems to be commanding obedience, even to ungodly governments such as Nero’s, so that by “doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men” and further the Gospel, much as a wife is to be excellent in her behavior and submit to her unbelieving husband for the sake of the Gospel. Now I certainly agree with Erik that we are to obey God rather than men, but there is often pretty broad latitude in how we might do that. Leading a tranquil and quiet life per the Scriptures would seem to avoid many of the potential pitfalls, although as government becomes more and more intrusive, we may unfortunately be seeing increasing attempts by the government to make us affirmatively sin. May it never be, and all the more reason to use the democratic process for the sake of the Kingdom. But I just don’t see how that can rise to the level of revolt and remain in accord with the Scriptures. Thanks again for your post.
I believe that the Scriptures must be studied in light of their original context, and yet they must transcend. Which means that we can apply both 1 Pet and Rom 13 to our lives today no matter who was emperor then. Besides, your original posting was about protesting, not revolt. I’m not sure your second-to-last sentance holds any water in that situation either, for that matter I don’t even know for certain how you define revolt, but I was replying to protest, not revolt, and there are many instances in the Bible of protest against govering authorities.
Ah, I see, you called them “recent revolutions.” Funny, I would call what happened in Egypt a fairly peaceful protest, on the part of the people. If I am not mistaken, it was the gov’t forces that were violent, not the people (unless you count a few wayward rock-throwers. But come on…). Is that what you consider a revolution? Citizens standing in the streets together for one cause? With nothing to defend themselves against government guns, canons, and teargas?
I agree Egypt was fairly peaceful. My main point in mentioning recent revolutions (going back for years, decades, even centuries), however, was to compare them to the time under Nero, which was much more oppressive than most situations in the modern era. And yet even under the much more oppressive Nero, even under a man who was clearly ungodly and not obeying God’s law, Peter still calls for obedience to government. I believe that is clear from the context and content of 1 Peter. And like you, I think that the epistle clearly remains relevant and “transcends” today… although my conclusion of how it’s relevant, how it transcends, may perhaps differ from yours. Thanks again for the discussion, I appreciate knowing more about where you’re coming from.
“sent by [God] for the punishment of evildoers” – this is key. As Gary mentions, this does not mean that every government or king can do what he wants, Romans 13 points out the rulers are *ministers of God*. They are to rule within their jurisdiction, executing God’s justice, not their own. Romans 13 also points out that they have no reason to fear, because they punish evil and not good – yet this is exactly what Nero did specifically – punish good and not evil. I think we’re called to submit to governments when they are executing God’s justice, not their own.
Bravo! Romans 13:4 is the rule when it comes to government.
Don’t forget that it was Peter that also said in Acts 5:29 that we are obey “God rather than men”. We have to balance that command with the command to submit ourselves, so basically we submit to the civil ministers up to the point where they demand we break God’s law or even their own governing law, such as that established by a constitution. For example, imagine a group of doctors protesting a Congressional mandate that they have to perform abortions. Such a mandate in the U.S. would violate God’s law not to murder as well as our own Constitution. Remember as well that peaceful protests are not the same thing as rebellion.